José Otero Dr. Michael T. Williamson ENGL 864 19 June 2014 Response: Inheritance Reconsidered “What happens when issues other than marriage take priority for women writers?” I’m not sure how to answer this question, particularly in regard to Christina Rossetti. Perhaps the best approach is to look closely at some of the types of poems that Rossetti produces and identify what her work teaches the audience. “No, Thank You, John,” for example, directly addresses the issue of marriage, and Rossetti clearly says “no, thank you” to the unheard from suitor. I find the speaker’s reasoning in the poem valid and instructional to women readers who may find themselves in the same situation. As a dramatic monologue, the poem demonstrates for the reader how to respond to an unwanted suitor. And for Rossetti, the proper response appears to be one that is direct and unambiguous. In the first stanza, for instance, the speaker explains to John that his continuous proposals are tiresome, and since she never told him that she loved him, they are unjustified. In the fourth and fifth stanzas, it appears that John may have said that the speaker “had no heart” (13) and was “false” (18); however, the speaker does not accept these arguments and exposes their weaknesses. If she had no heart, she couldn’t love him anyway, and she cannot be “false” if she never promised him to be “true.” The sixth stanza suggests that John focus on the current day instead of planning ahead for marriage, and the remaining stanzas reinforce the theme further. It is clear at the end that the speaker has no intention of marrying John or, perhaps, anyone else. So what happens now? The majority of Rossetti’s poems in the Dover collection focus on death and the afterlife. Is this the result when marriage is no longer a priority? It couldn’t be that simplistic. At the same time, once marriage as the purpose of life is removed, one might spend some time contemplating the meaning of existence without it. Rossetti has a number of concerns in this regard. In “At Home,” for example, the speaker is a ghost who finds that her death was quickly forgotten by her family. The ghost appears to be unhappy about this state of affairs. However, in “Song,” the speaker is more ambivalent about whether people will remember her after she dies. As she states, “if thou wilt, remember, / And if thou wilt, forget” (7-8). In fact, she’s fairly certain that she will not live on after death. She will not “feel the rain” or “hear the nightingale” (10-11). In “After Death,” on the other hand, she desires for her death to cause some degree of pain to a man who never loved her. And in this poem, she is conscious while in her death shroud. But in “Sweet Death,” Rossetti suggest that people who die will go to heaven and be with the “Saints and Angels, a glad company” (20). And this belief suggests to the speaker that there is no reason to resist death: “Why should we shrink from our full harvest?” (23). It appears that Rossetti explores questions regarding the meaning of life and what happens after one dies by writing poetry. In regard to inheritance and marriage, “Cousin Kate” is an interesting poem to look at. In this poem a “great lord” seduces a young woman who is of a much lower social class and gets her pregnant. But instead of marrying her, he marries the young woman’s cousin Kate. The young woman, however, is certain that the lord actually loves her although he has done nothing for her. She is so certain of this, in fact, that she tells Kate that her son will eventually inherit the lord’s estate because his “father would give lands for one / To wear his coronet” (47-48). This is interesting because it suggests to the reader that marriage is not required in order to gain an inheritance. The speaker doesn’t state whether or not Kate has a child as well, but the speaker’s child would end up being the oldest of the two. There is also a sense that the speaker’s child is the natural heir because she believes that the lord truly loved her and not Kate. In this worldview, true love is what determines an inheritance, not marriage.
Dr. Michael T. Williamson
ENGL 864
19 June 2014
Response: Inheritance Reconsidered
“What happens when issues other than marriage take priority for women writers?” I’m not sure how to answer this question, particularly in regard to Christina Rossetti. Perhaps the best approach is to look closely at some of the types of poems that Rossetti produces and identify what her work teaches the audience. “No, Thank You, John,” for example, directly addresses the issue of marriage, and Rossetti clearly says “no, thank you” to the unheard from suitor. I find the speaker’s reasoning in the poem valid and instructional to women readers who may find themselves in the same situation. As a dramatic monologue, the poem demonstrates for the reader how to respond to an unwanted suitor. And for Rossetti, the proper response appears to be one that is direct and unambiguous. In the first stanza, for instance, the speaker explains to John that his continuous proposals are tiresome, and since she never told him that she loved him, they are unjustified. In the fourth and fifth stanzas, it appears that John may have said that the speaker “had no heart” (13) and was “false” (18); however, the speaker does not accept these arguments and exposes their weaknesses. If she had no heart, she couldn’t love him anyway, and she cannot be “false” if she never promised him to be “true.” The sixth stanza suggests that John focus on the current day instead of planning ahead for marriage, and the remaining stanzas reinforce the theme further. It is clear at the end that the speaker has no intention of marrying John or, perhaps, anyone else.
So what happens now? The majority of Rossetti’s poems in the Dover collection focus on death and the afterlife. Is this the result when marriage is no longer a priority? It couldn’t be that simplistic. At the same time, once marriage as the purpose of life is removed, one might spend some time contemplating the meaning of existence without it. Rossetti has a number of concerns in this regard. In “At Home,” for example, the speaker is a ghost who finds that her death was quickly forgotten by her family. The ghost appears to be unhappy about this state of affairs. However, in “Song,” the speaker is more ambivalent about whether people will remember her after she dies. As she states, “if thou wilt, remember, / And if thou wilt, forget” (7-8). In fact, she’s fairly certain that she will not live on after death. She will not “feel the rain” or “hear the nightingale” (10-11). In “After Death,” on the other hand, she desires for her death to cause some degree of pain to a man who never loved her. And in this poem, she is conscious while in her death shroud. But in “Sweet Death,” Rossetti suggest that people who die will go to heaven and be with the “Saints and Angels, a glad company” (20). And this belief suggests to the speaker that there is no reason to resist death: “Why should we shrink from our full harvest?” (23). It appears that Rossetti explores questions regarding the meaning of life and what happens after one dies by writing poetry.
In regard to inheritance and marriage, “Cousin Kate” is an interesting poem to look at. In this poem a “great lord” seduces a young woman who is of a much lower social class and gets her pregnant. But instead of marrying her, he marries the young woman’s cousin Kate. The young woman, however, is certain that the lord actually loves her although he has done nothing for her. She is so certain of this, in fact, that she tells Kate that her son will eventually inherit the lord’s estate because his “father would give lands for one / To wear his coronet” (47-48). This is interesting because it suggests to the reader that marriage is not required in order to gain an inheritance. The speaker doesn’t state whether or not Kate has a child as well, but the speaker’s child would end up being the oldest of the two. There is also a sense that the speaker’s child is the natural heir because she believes that the lord truly loved her and not Kate. In this worldview, true love is what determines an inheritance, not marriage.